Search results
1 – 10 of over 1000The purpose of this study is to present and explain a new customer segmentation approach inspired by failure mode and effect analysis (FMEA) which can help classify customers into…
Abstract
Purpose
The purpose of this study is to present and explain a new customer segmentation approach inspired by failure mode and effect analysis (FMEA) which can help classify customers into more accurate segments.
Design/methodology/approach
The present study offers a look at the three most commonly used approaches to assessing customer loyalty:net promoter score, loyalty ladder and loyalty matrix. A survey on the quality of restaurant services compares the results of categorizing customers according to these three most frequently used approaches.
Findings
A new way of categorizing customers through loyalty priority number (LPN) is proposed. LPN was designed as a major segmentation criterion consisting of customer loyalty rate, frequency of purchase of products or services and value of purchases. Using the proposed approach allows to categorize customers into four more comprehensive groups: random, bronze, silver and gold – according to their loyalty and value to the organization.
Practical implications
Survey will bring a more accurate way of categorizing customers even in those sectors where transaction data are not available. More accurate customer categorization will enable organizations to use targeting tools more effectively and improve product positioning.
Originality/value
The most commonly used categorization approaches such as net promoter score, loyalty ladder or loyalty matrix offer relatively general information about customer groups. The present study combines the benefits of these approaches with the principles of FMEA. The case study not only made it possible to offer a view of the real application of the proposed approach but also made it possible to make a uniform comparison of the accuracy of customer categorization.
Details
Keywords
Matteo Corciolani, Kent Grayson and Ashlee Humphreys
Cultural intermediaries define the standards many consumers use when evaluating cultural products. Yet, little research has focused on whether cultural intermediaries may…
Abstract
Purpose
Cultural intermediaries define the standards many consumers use when evaluating cultural products. Yet, little research has focused on whether cultural intermediaries may systematically differ from each other with regard to the standards they emphasize. The purpose of this paper is to build on Bourdieu’s theory of cultural production to examine how the type of subfield reviewed and/or the cultural intermediary’s expertise (or “field-specific cultural capital”) affect the standards an intermediary uses.
Design/methodology/approach
This paper employed a computer-aided content analysis of the full corpus of “Rolling Stone” music album reviews (1967-2014).
Findings
Critics with lower field-specific cultural capital reflect the same logic as the subfield they are critiquing. Critics with higher field-specific cultural capital reflect the opposite logic.
Research limitations/implications
Bourdieu was ambivalent about whether cultural intermediaries will reflect the logic of a subfield. Results show that the answer depends on the intermediary’s field-specific cultural capital. The results also reinforce previous findings that individuals with high field-specific cultural capital are more likely to break with the logic of a field.
Practical implications
Not all intermediaries are created equal. Producers and consumers who rely on cultural intermediaries should understand the intermediary’s critical analysis within the context of his/her experience.
Originality/value
This is one of the first studies to examine how a cultural intermediary’s field-specific cultural capital impacts his or her work. The findings are based on a large review sample and include reviewers’ analyses as they developed from having lower to higher field-specific cultural capital.
Details